HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2010-13 Ord 1208 and 1209 TT 34943 DA 02-01 Amnd 3 ZOA 09-494 Stone Eagle* Continued to a date uncertain, with re -noticing of
the date to be provided at the appropriate time.
4-0-1 (Ferguson ABSTAINING)
REQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DE
( ail INiki tk � L :.:(-i 1aif i!'1
SESASSEES 2NC READIN:.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 'I;E."6' 42LIELLT -
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, denying a
request for a Tentative Tract Map with associated CEQA addendum to the
SEIR for Stone Eagle, third amendment to Development Agreement 02-01
(Stone Eagle Development), and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise
the Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridgeline Map, which would allow
the subdivision of 7.7 acres into six residential lots. Subject property is
located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old
Stone Trail (APN: 652-090-002).
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst
APPLICANT: Eagle 6.5, LLC, c/o Ted Lennon
74001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
CASE NOS: TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494
DATE: March 11, 2010
CONTENTS: Draft Resolution/Ordinances
Copy of Legal Notice
Plans & Exhibits
Recommendation
That the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2010-13 granting the appeal, and approving the
findings and TT 34943, subject to attached conditions; and
2. Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1208 to second
reading, approving Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment No. 3;
and
3. Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1209 to second
reading, approving an amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential
(HPR) Zone approved Ridgeline Map.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its regular meeting of December 15, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed project for the first time. Commissioners expressed concerns with the definition of
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 2 of 10
an outcropping versus a ridgeline during discussion with staff. Commissioners generally
believed that the layers of complexity of this case warranted careful review and requested
that staff arrange a study session for the Planning Commission. At that time, the developer
also offered to arrange site visits to show how the lots fit within the existing outcroppings
and contours of the land.
At the Planning Commission Study Session of January 14, 2010, the Commission was
given additional information by staff regarding this project. The developer proposed a few
minor amendments to the Planning Commission at that time; most notable was the lowering
of several pads and removing significant amounts of fill by adjusting pad number two. The
Commission generally thanked the developer for continuing to work cooperatively with the
City.
At its regular meeting of January 19, 2010, the Planning Commission was presented the
amendments as proposed by the developer. The developer indicated that by reconfiguring
pad number two and Towering/reducing other pads that they were able to reduce the import
of fill to the project by 3,000 cubic yards, leaving only 1,500 cubic yards of import to the
proposed project. The Planning Commission expressed concerns over the proposed
development, stating that the density far exceeds what is allowed within the HPR zone.
After consideration, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of
denial. The resolution of denial was adopted at the meeting of February 16, 2010.
At the conclusion of the January 19, 2010, meeting the Planning Commission discussed the
current language of the HPR zone with regards to definitions of "outcroppings." The
Commission directed staff to amend the current HPR zone to include further definition of an
outcropping and treat them equally to ridgelines.
Executive Summary
Approval of the staff recommendation would allow the development of six residential estate
lots on 7.7 acres that would be annexed into the Stone Eagle project. Staff's
recommendation for approval of this project is dependent on reducing the overall number of
61 dwelling units to 52 dwelling units, achieved by an amendment to the existing
Development Agreement. Staff believes this project not only reduces the overall number of
units of Stone Eagle, but also meets the goals of preserving and reducing development
within all hillside areas.
Denial of the staff recommendation will preclude the developers from subdividing and
annexing this property into the Stone Eagle development. The existing development
agreement would be left in place, allowing Stone Eagle to develop up to 61 dwelling units
within its existing boundaries (46 units exist today).
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 3 of 10
Background
A. Property Description:
The subject property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the
southern termination of Old Stone Trail. The property is currently vacant with a
zoning designation of Hillside Planned Residential. The 7.7 acres is at the base of
the mountains, and includes one main ridge and several outcroppings and rock
formations. The terrain of the property is generally higher on the hills than the
previous phases of Stone Eagle.
B. Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Zone:
The HPR Zone was amended in April of 2007 and includes the following
Development Standards:
Density: Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres.
Building Pad Area: The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not
exceed 10,000 square feet.
Access Road: Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for
development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet.
Maximum Dwelling Size: Total dwelling unit, garage and accessory building size on
any one lot shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.
Ridgeline Development: Development on or across ridges is prohibited.
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: Hillside Planned Residential / Stone Eagle
South: Hillside Planned Residential / Vacant
East: Planned Residential / Sommerset Community
West: Hillside Planned Residential / Vacant
D. Stone Eagle Development:
On October 24, 2002, the City Council approved a series of applications and a
development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" and now known as
"Stone Eagle". Stone Eagle is an exclusive gated residential community with 46
single-family lots, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse, and an 18-hole golf course
located west of Highway 74 with an access road across the Palm Valley Storm
Channel opposite of Homestead Road. The project is zoned Hillside Planned
Residential (HPR) and the development standards are as approved.
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 4 of 10
The originally approved Development Agreement allowed for 61 total residential
dwelling units on the site. The agreement also allowed the developer, if they chose,
to sell units as fractional ownership with up to a 1/4 share. Since the original
approval of the agreement there have been two amendments.
Amendments are as follows:
Amendment #1: Approved in September of 2007, this amendment allowed the
developer to sell 20 homes within Stone Eagle with up to nine fractional interests. In
exchange Stone Eagle agreed to designate the remaining 41 units as single
ownership.
Amendment #2: Approved in March of 2008, this amendment allowed the developer
to increase the roof height of 19 residential units within Stone Eagle to twenty five
feet, two inches.
Project Description
The proposed Tentative Tract Map and associated applications would allow the developer
to subdivide 7.7 acres within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone into six residential Tots
and incorporate them into the Stone Eagle Development. The proposed lots range in size
from 7,673 square feet to 12,843 square feet. There are no homes being proposed on the
property at this time. Stone Eagle anticipates selling these lots as custom estate lots.
Homes would be designed independent of each other, but would conform to the approved
design guidelines to ensure continuity.
The developer has tailored this application as an amendment to the approved development
agreement, which would essentially annex this property into the Stone Eagle Development.
Staff believes that there are intrinsically two ways to analyze this application, one by using
the current approach of this application, and one which would be the strict and literal
interpretation of the HPR Zone. Staff will discuss this further in following sections of this
report.
Site Plan:
Access:
Access to this site is through the main entrance of Stone Eagle via Old Stone Trail. Old
Stone Trail currently dead ends at the northern boundary of this project. The Tentative
Tract Map proposes access to the site on the eastern boundary by extending Old Stone
Trail (see following map).
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 5 of 10
Ridgeline Development:
According to the approved Hillside Planned Residential Zone's Ridgeline Map, several of
the proposed pads intersect ridgelines. During the initial pre -application meetings staff
alerted the developer of this issue. The developer contends that the City's Ridgeline Map is
inaccurate and has proposed what they believe to be the true ridgelines. At the request of
the project team, staff walked the site in an attempt to verify what is the correct ridge. After
surveying the site, staff is in agreement with the developer.
The HPR Zone Ridgeline Map was created in 2007 by the City's Planning Department and
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department. The GIS Department utilized mostly
topographic data in developing the map and at the time the map was identified as "not
survey accurate." In reviewing this parcel, staff believes that many items on the topo map
that are rock outcroppings were erroneously identified as ridgelines. An outcropping can be
defined as a rock formation that appears above the surface of the surrounding land. In this
case what happened was that once several outcroppings were identified off of the topo
maps, they were connected with a line creating apparent ridges. However, in the field it
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 6 of 10
becomes apparent that these are not ridges. Removing the lines between outcroppings, the
proposed pads are not located on any ridges and also do not disturb any of the
outcroppings. This can be illustrated by the map below and also in your large format sheets
labeled "Ridgeline Exhibit." Due to the fact that the HPR Zone Ridgeline Map is an exhibit
to an ordinance, any revision requires a Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 7 of 10
Density:
Density is arguably the most complex portion of this project. As such staff will attempt to
explain this application in two scenarios: Density allowed by expansion of Development
Agreement 02-01; and Density allowed under the HPR zone.
Density Allowed by Expansion of Development Agreement 02-01:
The proposal by the applicant is to subdivide a 7.7-acre parcel into six residential lots. The
originally approved Development Agreement for Stone Eagle allowed for 61 total dwelling
units; however, only 46 were actually constructed. The applicant proposes to use six
additional units from the balance of 15 that were leftover from the Development Agreement
by annexing this land into the Stone Eagle Development.
Whenever an amendment to a development agreement is proposed, it should be mutually
beneficial. That said, during initial meetings the applicant indicated an area they might be
able to sacrifice was in the allowable number of units for the project in return for granting
approval of these six lots. The proposal for six new lots would reduce the balance of 15
units to a total of nine remaining units if approved. Staff has indicated to the developer that
in order to gain our recommendation for approval, they would have to give up all of the
remaining nine units. Stone Eagle is willing to forgo some units. However, they would like
to keep three to four units to develop in the vicinity of the clubhouse once it is built. After
many discussions, staff continues to recommend elimination of the remaining nine units in
exchange for the proposed six lots. The applicant indicates they are prepared to address
the City Council with a request to keep a couple of units.
From a density perspective, the original Stone Eagle project occupied 703 acres. Sixty -One
(61) units on 703 acres equates to a density of one dwelling unit per 11.5 acres. If the 7.7
acres of proposed land is added to the development and the unit count is reduced to 52, the
total density actually goes down to one dwelling unit per 13.6 acres. If approved, this
proposal reduces the amount of development possible within the lower hillsides of Cahuilla
Hills, but allows six lots in slightly more mountainous terrain.
Density Allowed Under the HPR Zone:
The HPR zone allows for one unit per five acres of land. The 7.7 acres of land would be
entitled to one unit if was being developed as a standalone project. Section 25.15.030 (D)
allows property owners to apply for exceptions to the density standard, however staff
generally discourages these types of exceptions as they are inconsistent with the long
range vision for minimizing development on the hillsides.
Public Works Condition #17 (Bike Path):
During the initial planning of Stone Eagle Development there were discussions regarding
the accommodation of a bicycle / golf cart path along the access roads adjacent to the Palm
Valley Storm Channel. Due to the fact that no plan existed at the time for this path, Stone
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 8 of 10
Eagle was conditioned loosely to accommodate the future path. There has been no
movement on this path since that time. Both the Planning and Public Works Departments
believe this to be an opportune time to further develop this plan. Condition #16 of the Public
Works Department requires the applicant to install a 10' wide decomposed granite multi use
path along the east side of the Palm Valley Channel and aid the City in acquiring the
easement from CVWD. The applicant has created a Bike Path Plan which is included in the
exhibits.
Analysis
Project Data:
STANDARD
HPR ZONE
ALLOWED W / DA I
02-01
PROJECT
Coverage
40% *
Not limited under DA
02-01
No change from DA
02-01
Height
as approved
20'
20'
Front Setback
as approved
15'
15'
Rear Setback
as approved
10'
10'
Side Setbacks
as approved
5'
5'
Landscaping
Requires
renaturalization
Addressed as
mitigation measure in
EIR
Required as
mitigation measures
of EIR
* based on the HPR Zone allowable 10,000 sq. ft. pad and 4,000 sq. ft. dwelling.
Findings for Approval:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific
plans.
• The proposed tract map falls within the Residential Hillside Reserve
(R-HR) designation of the General Plan. The intent of R-HR
designation is to provide reasonable development opportunities while
protecting natural and scenic resources. The R-HR allows for zero to
one unit per five acres. The gross project encompasses 710 acres and
as proposed will be allowed 52 total units, which equates to a total
density of one dwelling per 13 acres of gross land. There is no
specific plan for this area.
2. That the design or improvements of the proposed map are consistent with
the applicable general and specific plans.
• Limiting grading and protecting natural resources is a goal of both the
City's R-HR General Plan Designation and the City's HPR Zone. As
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 9 of 10
proposed, this project would accomplish that goal by reducing the
overall number of units of the Stone Eagle Development from 61 to the
proposed 52 units. There is no specific plan for this area.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• The vacant property is located within the city of Palm Desert and
located adjacent to the existing Stone Eagle Development. The site
has logical access points via Old Stone Trail. The pads have been
located to blend with the natural terrain of the property to the greatest
extent feasible. Similar sites have been successfully developed as
single family homes as is proposed here, demonstrating that these
sites are physically suitable for the proposed development
4. The site is physically suitable for residential development.
• The proposed 7.7 acres is physically suitable for residential
development via access from Stone Eagle and proposed access
roads. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the small footprint of
these residential units fit easily into the rugged terrain of the hills.
5. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• The subject property has been subjected to a Biological Assessment
and Impact Analysis, and has been found to have less than significant
environmental impacts. The proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
• The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the
zoning ordinance. Any development on the proposed parcels is
subject to applicable City development standards and the California
Uniform Building Code.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, aquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision.
• The proposed subdivision of 7.7 acres does not interfere with any
public easements.
City Council Staff Report
TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, & ZOA 09-494
March 11, 2010
Page 10 of 10
Environmental Review
Stone Eagle prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which was approved by the City of Palm
Desert in October of 2002. This project presents an amendment to the original approved
Stone Eagle project and is within the overall development thresholds set by the original
approval. Its potential physical impacts on the environment are comparable to those
identified for the original project and can be reduced to less than significant levels through
the application of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures set forth in the
certified SEIR. Staff has prepared an addendum to the SEIR in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA.
A project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared in
accordance with sections 24.20 & 26.49.060 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and is on
file with the City's Planning Department.
Conclusion
As proposed, the project can be approved through a Tentative Tract Map, Amendment to
the Development Agreement including an Addendum to the SEIR and a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. If approved, Stone Eagle would be allowed to create six new lots within the
hillside, but would agree to waive the right to any future dwelling units (as staff proposes)
and would aid the City in creating a multi -use path along the Palm Valley Storm Channel.
Staff believes that the reduction of potential development on the hillside and the
Developer's willingness to work with the City on the multi -use trail provide a fair compromise
with Stone Eagle. Staff recommends that the City Council approve this project.
Fiscal Analysis
The proposed project will be revenue neutral to the City, since the nominal increase in
property tax from the new homes will be offset by a nominal increase in costs of services
provided.
Ryan Stendell
Senior Management Analyst
Appr
Joh� Wohlmuth
Cit, nager
Department Head:
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
34943 WITH ASSOCIATED CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE
SEIR FOR THE STONE EAGLE PROJECT, WHICH
ALLOWS 7.7-ACRES TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO SIX (6)
RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
WEST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AT THE
TERMINATION OF OLD STONE TRAIL (APN: 652-090-
002).
CASE NO. TT 34949 (RELATING CASES DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #3,
AND ZOA 09-494)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 15th of December, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued
to January 19 and February 16, 2010, to consider the request of EAGLE 6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of Tentative Tract Map
34943, Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th
of March, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision of the request by EAGLE 6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the proposed additional property is within the development thresholds set by the original
Stone Eagle SEIR and an addendum to the SEIR has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of Tentative Tract
Map 34943:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific
plans.
• The proposed tract map falls within the Residential Hillside Reserve
(R-HR) designation of the General Plan. The intent of R-HR
designation is to provide reasonable development opportunities
while protecting natural and scenic resources. The R-HR allows for
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
zero to one unit per five acres. The gross project encompasses 710
acres and as proposed will be allowed 52 total units, which equates
to a total density of one dwelling per 13 acres of gross land. There
is no specific plan for this area.
2. That the design or improvements of the proposed map are consistent with
the applicable general and specific plans.
• Limiting grading and protecting natural resources is a goal of both
the City's R-HR General Plan Designation and the City's HPR
Zone. As proposed, this project would accomplish that goal by
reducing the overall number of units within the Stone Eagle
Development from 61 units to the proposed 52 units. There is no
specific plan for this area.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• The vacant property is located within the city of Palm Desert and
located adjacent to the existing Stone Eagle Development. The
site has logical access points via Old Stone Trail. The pads have
been located to blend with the natural terrain of the property to the
greatest extent feasible. Similar sites have been successfully
developed as single family homes as is proposed here,
demonstrating that these sites are physically suitable for the
proposed development
4. The site is physically suitable for residential development.
• The proposed 7.7 acres is physically suitable for residential
development via access from Stone Eagle and proposed access
roads. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the small footprint of
these residential units fit easily into the rugged terrain of the hills.
5. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• The subject property has been subjected to a Biological
Assessment and Impact Analysis, and has been found to have less
than significant environmental impacts. The proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
6. That the design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
• The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the
zoning ordinance. Any development on the proposed parcels is
subject to applicable City development standards and the California
Uniform Building Code.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, aquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
• The proposed subdivision of 7.7 acres does not interfere with any
public easements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
2. That approval of Tentative Tract Map 34943 with associated CEQA
Addendum as shown in Exhibit "A", hereby subject to the attached
conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 11th day of March, 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Desert, California
Cindy Finerty, Mayor
3
RESOLUTION Na 2010-13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 34943
Department of Community Development
1. That all conditions of approval imposed on the original Tentative Tract Map
30438 and Development Agreement 02-01 (as amended) shall apply to this
application.
2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
3. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of
final approval unless an extension of time is granted, otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Multi Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
6. The applicant shall re -naturalize any and all disturbed hillside area of the project
with native landscaping and materials to blend the project into the natural terrain.
7. All conditions of approval shall be recorded before any permits are issued.
Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community
Development/Planning.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
Department of Public Works
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Landscape maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water
efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Landscape
Design Standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which shall be approved by the City of
Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall
specify; (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners
association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping Plans shall be
submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans.
2. CC&R's should be submitted for review with the final map and recorded with the
final map.
3. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
4. The maintenance of any retention areas shall be by the homeowners association
and stipulated in the CC&R's.
BONDS AND FEES
5. Drainage fees, in accordance with section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to the recordation of the final map.
6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
7. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
8. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
9. Grading Bonds are required.
10. Bond shall be posted for public improvements.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
11. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to
retain on -site the increase in flows for a 100 year storm.
12. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted
to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any
permits.
13. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective
provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the department of
Public Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance
of any permits.
14. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
15. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter
26 and 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
16. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements that impact the
Palm Valley Channel shall be subject to review and approval by CVWD.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT
17. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards including:
• Construction of 10' wide, decomposed granite bike path from Calle De Los
Campesinos to Cholla Way. Assist the City to obtain necessary easement
from appropriate owners by providing the City with legal description and
plat by a registered land surveyor/civil engineer.
• Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any
permits associated with this project.
18. Prior to the recordation of the tract map, the public improvements shall have
been completed or bond is in place to cover the full cost of public improvements,
as determined by the Director of Public Works.
6
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
19. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided.
20. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
22. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm
water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact
Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
23. All grading shall be done under direct supervision of a registered soils engineer.
24. Provisions for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be
affected by this project shall be included prior to recordation of the final map.
25. Prior to recordation of the final map and the issuance of any permits associated
with this project, applicant shall provide evidence of legal access rights.
26. Further conditions may be applied when plans are submitted and reviewed for
individual homes.
27. Conditions from Development Agreement 02-01, as amended, shall apply to this
project.
28. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
approval.
Riverside County Fire Department
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC and UBC, or
any recognized fire protection standards.
7
RESOLUTION NO. 7010-13
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm fire flow
of 1500 gpm for single family dwellings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 200' feet from any portion of
a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
7. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or
when building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
8. Radius into driveways to Tots 2 & 4 shall not be less than 31' inside and 52'
outside.
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
EXHIBIT "A"
ADDENDUM TO
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH#: 1991021034)
AND FINDINGS
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA")
FOR
TPM NO. 34943 OTHE THE CREST/STONE EAGLE GOLF CLUB AND
RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND
The CREST/STONE EAGLE GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL
VILLAGE Project (the "Project" and including GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-
03 and DA 02-01) was approved by the City of Palm Desert, California on or about October 24,
2002 by the City Council. This Project provided for the amendment of General Plan land use
and Zoning Map designations, subdivision of approximately 703-acres and the development of a
championship golf course and associated clubhouse and amenities, and up to 61 dwelling units.
The approval also established design and development standards, as well as access controls and
public trail provisions.
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) were prepared for the Project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR was circulated
for public comment and approved by the Palm Desert City Council through Resolution No. 02-
135 adopted on October 24, 2002. In accordance with all Project approvals, most of the Project
has been developed but with residential numbers/densities below those originally approved by
the City.
Over the course of buildout of the Crest/Stone Eagle project, the developer has reduced
the number of residential units from the originally approved 61 dwellings to 52 dwellings. The
developer has submitted Tentative Parcel map No. 34943 on 7.72± acres to allow the inclusion
of six (6) single family residential lots and one (1) lettered lot representing streets within the
subject subdivision. The subject property is located immediately south of and contiguous to the
approved Project and immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, and will utilize
the same roadway network and infrastructure. The Project will utilize and improve an existing
channel maintenance easement held by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to connect
the Project to the original Crest/Stone Eagle project.
Development of the proposed addition to the Project will involve the southerly extension
of the existing Old Stone Trail within the aforementioned CVWD channel maintenance
9
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
easement. The Project will also include the grading of two access roads terminating at lots or
hammerhead turn -around. The proposed residential lots will range in size from 0.79 to 2.72 acres
and will provide graded development pads ranging in size from 7,673 to 12,843 square feet.
The proposed Project adds to and amends the originally approved project, shall comply
with all design development standards and guidelines approved by the City for the Crest/Stone
Eagle project, and is materially consistent with the original Project approvals and all applicable
development regulations of the City of Palm Desert, including without limitation the City's
General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and Development Agreement (as amended), as well as
applicable development standards and scenic preservation overlay standards.
CEQA ANALYSIS
Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has already occurred
for the Project through the certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. CEQA limits re -
review to conditions or circumstances that arise under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
These CEQA laws state no subsequent environmental document such as an EIR or
negative declaration shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the
basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous MND or EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND or EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(3)
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND
or EIR was approved as complete shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous MND or EIR;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous MND or EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible but the project proponents decline to adopt such measures
or alternative;
d. Considerably different mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponents decline to
adopt such measures or alternative
10
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
Where none of the conditions set forth above occur, with substantial evidence, then the
lead agency may determine to prepare an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated
Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. CEQA Guidelines 15162(b) and
15164(b). Reliance upon the earlier MND or EIR is cause for the filing of a new Notice of
Determination once the Project is approved accompanied by an Addendum. CEQA Guidelines
15094.
Findings of Fact
The Project has been evaluated to determine if there is any substantial evidence of the
circumstances or conditions, which would warrant a subsequent environmental document. The
existing environmental assessments, studies and reports were evaluated and compared with the
Project, as were supplemental biological' and cultural resources2 reports and line -of -sight
analyses. All of the potential environmental impacts studied in the Subsequent EIR were again
evaluated for the proposed project and were determined to be Less Than Significant with the
proper and thorough application of the mitigation measures set forth in the certified SEIR.
Specific areas of potential concern are discussed below.
This Project presents an amendment to the original approved Crest/Stone Eagle project
and is within the overall development thresholds set by the original approval. Its potential
physical impacts on the environment are comparable to those identified for the original Project
and can be reduced to less than significant levels through the application of the Conditions of
Approval and mitigation measures set forth in the certified SEIR. Additional limitations and
development controls will further assure that impacts associated with the project area less than
significant.
Aesthetics Visual Resources
The height, massing and scale of the proposed residences will be equal to or less than
those allowed under the original approval, with homes to be limited to single story development.
The certified SEIR for the Crest/Stone Eagle project includes a wide range of mitigation
measures designed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the area's visual resources. These
shall be applied to the review and approval of the Project and include but are not limited to: (1)
the use of building materials and colors that blend and harmonize with the surrounding ground
and rocky terrain, (2) use of landscape materials from already approved plant palette, as well as
rocks and boulders to re -naturalize graded slopes and for use in walls, (3) City review of detailed
grading plans that minimize site disturbance the the greatest extent practicable, (4) careful City
review of building plans/elevations and landscape plans prior to issuance of building permits (see
Section III -I of the certified Crest SEIR), (5) all outdoor lighting shall be limited to the greatest
extent practicable and shall be full shielded to preclude spillage onto adjoining lands.
2
"Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Lowe Enterprises 6.5-Acre Residential Site",
prepared by James W. Cornett. July 28, 2006.
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report - Assessors Parcel No. 652-090-002", prepared by CRM
Tech. August 16, 2006.
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13
Noise
The certified SEIR for the Crest/Stone Eagle project includes a wide range of mitigation
measures designed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the area's noise environment.
These shall be applied to the review and approval of the Project and include but are not limited
to: (1) limitation on any blasting to the hours of 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and
residents in the vicinity shall be given notice at least one day prior to blasting activities.
Secondary/Emergency Access
The City fire Marshall shall review the proposed subdivision and assure that adequate
secondary/emergency access is provided to the proposed residences.
In conclusion, the lead agency, the City of Palm Desert, in the exercise of its independent
judgment, determines that this Addendum is complete and has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of CEQA. The previously certified SEIR is incorporated herein by this
reference. The City determines that all mitigation measures in the SEIR remain applicable to the
Project.
A notice of determination shall be filed with the County Clerk upon the approval of the
Project.
Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Date
Director, City of Palm Desert
12
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING 7.7 ACRES TO
BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING STONE EAGLE PROJECT
AND REDUCING ALLOWABLE DENSITY TO 52
DWELLING UNITS, RELATING TO STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT (TT 34943 & ZOA 09-494).
CASE NO. DA 02-01 Amendment #3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 15th of December, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing which
was continued to January 19 and February 16, 2010, to consider the request of EAGLE
6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of Tentative Tract Map
34943, Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th
of March, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision of the request by EAGLE 6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City
of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the proposed additional property is within the development thresholds set by the original
Stone Eagle SEIR and an addendum to the SEIR has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions as described below:
1. That the Development Agreement amendment would better serve the
public health, safety and general welfare, by reducing the overall amount
of development by nine dwelling units and reducing the overall impact and
disturbance of the hillside areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
ORDINANCE NO, 1208
2. That DA 02-01 Amendment #3, as delineated in the attached Exhibit A, is
hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CINDY FINERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
EXHIBIT "A"
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palm Desert
Attn: City Clerk
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
Third Amendment to Development Agreement
This Third Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of this day of , 2009, by and between the CITY OF PALM
DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT,
LLC ("Developer") as successor -in interest to DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation ("DDC") (City and Developer are, collectively, "the
Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State
of California.
RECITALS
A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated as of
November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-
172463, in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the
"Agreement"). The Agreement was entered into to facilitate the development of
certain real property ("Site") more particularly described in the Agreement.
B. Subsequently, City and Developer entered into "First Amendment to the
Development Agreement 02-01" dated September 27, 2007 (Riverside County
Document #2007-0663645, recorded October 29, 2007), and "Second Agreement
to the Development Agreement 02-01" dated March 27, 2008 (Riverside County
Document # 2008-0404071, recorded July 24, 2008).
C. The Developer now desires to make an additional approximately 7.7± acres
("Additional Property") subject to the Agreement as amended by this
Amendment. All 7.7± acres of the Additional Property are located within the City.
The Additional Property is described as Tentative Tract 34943 and as shown on
Exhibit A-7 attached hereto.
D. The Developer does hold fee title to all of the Additional Property.
E. City and Developer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set
forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Agreement.
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises of the
Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date which is two
(2) business days after the date which is thirty (30) days after date of final adoption by the City
of the ordinance approving this Amendment ("Effective Date"). From and after the Effective
Date, all references to the Agreement shall automatically be deemed to mean the Agreement as
amended by this Amendment.
2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meaning set forth in the Agreement.
3. Effect on Additional Property. This amendment will bind the Additional Property
upon the effect date since Developer in Recital D. indicates the ownership of fee title. In
additional the Additional Property shall be subject to and bound by the Original Agreement set
forth in Recital A and the First and Second Amendments set forth in Recital B.
4. Expansion of Site. From and after the Effective Date, the Site will be expanded
to add thereto the Additional Property, consisting of an additional approximately 7.7± acres
within the City, and thereafter the term "Site" as used in the Agreement shall be deemed to
include both the original Site as defined in the Agreement as originally entered into, and the
Additional Property.
5. Revised Exhibits. On the Effective Date: (i) Exhibit A-7 attached to this
Amendment shall be included with Exhibit A attached to the Agreement; (ii) Exhibit C
attached to this Amendment shall be substituted for the Exhibit C attached to the Agreement;
and (iii) Exhibit D attached to this Amendment shall be substituted for the Exhibit D attached to
the Agreement.
6. Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by and
between the Parties hereto that the Agreement and this Amendment shall not be severable from
Developer's interest in the Additional Property, and the provisions of the Agreement as amended
by this Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Site or any portion
thereof upon the recordation against the Additional Property of the Agreement and this
Amendment, and that thereafter the benefits and burdens of the Agreement as amended by this
Amendment shall bind and inure to all successors in interest to the Parties.
7. Interpretation. This Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of the
provisions their plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment.
8. Entire Agreement. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals, each of
which is deemed to be an original. This Amendment consists of six (6) pages and three (3)
exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the matters set forth in this
Amendment.
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
9. Status of Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
10. Amendments to Article 2, Section 201(1) Residential Development: From and
after the Effective Date, Article 2, Section 201(1) shall be revised to read: "The area of the site
designated for residential development on the site plan showing anticipated facilities and their
locations on the site attached hereto as Exhibit C may be developed with up to fifty two (52)
residential dwelling units (each, a "DU"). Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set
forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each of no more than twenty (20)
DU may (but need not) in developer's sole discretion be sold as up to nine (9) fractional
interests, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of such fractional interests to
occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such owner has a fee interest) for a
portion of each calendar year. The remaining thirty two (32) DU of the entitled fifty two (52) DU
shall not exceed one (1) ownership, which is an amendment from the originally approved sixty
one (61) total dwelling units."
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date and
year first above written.
"CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California
Municipal Corporation
Effective Date: By:
(Mayor, City of Palm Desert)
, 2009
Attest:
City Manager
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
"DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
Date of Submission by Developer: By:
, 2009
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
ss.
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
ss.
Notary Public
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
Exhibit A-7
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34943
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
The Southeast quarter of Government Lot 2 in the Northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 5
South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian according to the official plat thereof.
Excepting therefrom that portion lying North of the South line of and its Easterly extension of
Tract No. 20024, in the City of Palm Desert, as shown by Map on file in Book 211, Page(s) 90
through 94, inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County,
California.
Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by
deed recorded August 23, 1971 as Instrument/File No. 94950 of Official Records.
APN: 652-090-002
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
m
R
ORDINANCE NO. 1208
EXHIBIT D
BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS
The following development standards shall apply for TTM 34943:
Minimum Building Setbacks:
All custom lot setbacks will be reviewed on the individual merits of the submitted site plan. At a
minimum, the following setbacks shall be maintained.
Front Yard Setbacks:
Rear Yard Setbacks:
Interior Side Yard Setbacks:
Fifteen (15) Feet
Ten (10) Feet
Five (5) Feet
Building Heights:
Residential buildings or structures shall not have a height exceeding twenty (20) feet from the
approved finished pad elevation. Roof mounted equipment must be placed within said height
limitations and shall be screened from view. Chimney height and other projections required by
building codes will be examined on a case by case basis. Visual impacts and privacy
views to or from adjacent structures will be considered.
,rt
ORDINANCE NO. 1209
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 25.15 HILLSIDE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL (HPR) AMENDING THE APPROVED HPR
RIDGELINE MAP, RELATING TO THE STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT (TT 34943, DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #3).
CASE NO. ZOA 09-494
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 15th of December, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing which
was continued to January 19 and February 16, 2010, to consider the request of EAGLE
6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of Tentative Tract Map
34943, Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th
of March, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision of the request by EAGLE 6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the subject property was previously studied during the Hillside Planned Residential Zone
update dated April 12th, 2007, resulting in the filing of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental impact. The proposed amendment is within the scope of the previously filed
Negative Declaration and will not have an adverse affect on the environment and no
further documentation is required; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions as described below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected specific plans.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment approval results in the approval of
a project (Stone Eagle TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-
494) that would reduce the total number of constructed units in hillside
areas of Palm Desert, thereby achieving the goal of limiting grading and
disturbance within the hillsides.
ORDINANCE NO. 1209
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
2. That ZOA 09-494, as delineated in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby
ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
CINDY FINERTY, Mayor
2
ORDINANCE NO. 1209
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT B
RIDGELINE REVISION
ZOA-09-494
- PROPOSED
- TO BE REMOVED
DATE: RiocE
12/2009 1 inch = 200 feet
VICINITY MAP
IL:LIVED
';IT Y CLERK'S
OFFICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFOI -NIA
7010 FEB 22 AM I0, 24
APPLICATION TO APPEAL
DECISION OF THE planning Commission
(Name of Deletmining Body)
Case No. TT 34943' DA 02-01 Amd#3, ZOA 09-494
Date of Decision:
February 16, 2010
Name of Appellant Eagle 6.5, LLC C/O Ted Lennon phone 760-779-1646
Address 74001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: Application to subdivide 7.7 acres into
6 residential estate lots within the Stone Eagle Development.
Reason forAoneal (attach additional sheets if necessary):
(1) Intent of development agreement
(2) Reduced overall density
(3) Importance to long range success of Stone Eagle Community (CC&R Does contemplated annexation).
(4) Well thought out and executed community with environmental and architectural guidelines.
(5) Minimal disturbance. (6) Ridgeline resolution.
1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: ;ZD1l U - -ecea) (
Treasurer's Receipt No. % �l 6, 6 Received by: } j " ,�i) t
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official. :
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
(-)/(101)( I Y
COPY TO
H:4AIasaom1WPdata1WP00CS1FORMS1appl b eppW.wpd
DATE
901
Rev dam
CITY Of PIL111 DESERT
73-5I0 FRLU WARIN(, DRI�I.
PALM 1)L'1RI. CAI. I1.0RNIA 92260-
TEL: 760 346-06,1
1Av:760 341-7098
inlo('Iulnrdcscrr.urg
578
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #3, TT 34943, and ZOA 09-494
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, denying a request
by Eagle 6.5 LLC., for a Tentative Tract Map, third amendment to Development
Agreement 02-01 including an addendum to the previously approved Environmental
Impact Report, and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential
Ridgeline Map, allowing the subdivision of 7.7 acres into six residential lots. Subject
property is located west of the Palm- Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old Stone
Trail (APN: 652-090-002).
City of Palm Desert Map
CHAPEL HILL RD
} y,Illlll1
i lhll��lll,,r
'r, CALLIANDRA ST
��I I 'IHAYSTACKRD
ffl�iilII�i>'illl
Q/iSOAERA RD
tltlllll
2
rJ ySKYWARrDfWAjY LII LII L1_L ll� I I)) III1L I�II�
f!(f(JIIIIBEL I�R RD
�I�IrJIillll
HOMESTEAD RD
ITN i.
rn
2
_
h 7 ii I T
iII'fI! 4/ nS a x
U A, A
- CANYONLN4J � ! mEODORAW
O �! el{/ I l I L
C Illy MESA VEWDR MESA VIEW DR
IIIllllsOfq l I ,■ ■i .t .. �.t
o `III ems` 6/11111t0 • so me 'on ow imi
En
Mal
6
pJ!/I
N�
ti
1111
n
nn
Ht.
4.11
INDIAN HILLSWAYi 7► 1Iiiii O 'hi
-zjj wwi
Re 4$0..0 4 *I'M
,I
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 11, 2010.at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun
March 1, 2010
Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010
There were no other questions. Chairperson Limont opened the public
hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert,
stated that he is the architect for the project. To answer the
question regarding the 752, that is actually an existing pad and that
is how it is currently. In Mr. Swartz's presentation, he mentioned
that Lot 10 is 754 and Lot 8 is 750, sc the medium elevation is
averaged at 752. Those lots were ac„ " following the slope of
the street. So they were really not ing the pads, they were
requesting to keep the pads as they a in field, which is not the
same as it was recorded on th +Ian that waibmitted. Regarding
chimneys, by code they h. ave at Ieasco feet above for
fireplaces. Most times chi m s are higher than th eight limit.
Commissioner Schmidt asked larifichen he said at the pad
exists, Mr. Ochoa was talking abo • round, not concrete.
Mr. Ochoa said
Commissioner Schmidt etb
id that
raded at 752 feet.
Ch on Limo sked if yone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in
OP ION to • roposal :here was no one. Chairperson Limont
asked r action.
Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
the findings and recommendation as presented by
by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
pting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2519, approving
subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3 and ZOA 09-494 —
EAGLE 6.5, LLC, c/o TED LENNON, Applicant
Per Planning Commission direction, presentation of a
resolution denying a tentative tract map with associated
CEQA addendum to the SEIR for Stone Eagle, third
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010
amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 (Stone Eagle
Development), and a zoning ordinance amendment to revise
the Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridgeline Map to allow
the subdivision of 7.7 acres into six residential lots. Subject
property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at
the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN 652-090-002).
Mr. Stendell indicated that at the last meet'
discussion and at the conclusion of it, staff
resolution of denial. Staff was back with a
to answer any questions. There were no clues ie
ckets was a Ie r from a nearby
last meeting. Thai. s a letter that
minutes b fore the meets started, so
of dis it in advance'"of the last
n and became a part of the
ould accompany the resolution
Ms. Aylaian added that also in th
resident dated the same date
was emailed approximately s
staff had not received it and
meeting. It was in their packets
record. Commissioner Schmidt aske
to Council. Ms. Aylaian ; a. yes.
Action:
It was mov
Schmidt,
(Com
here was a lengthy
tw instructed to prepare a
tion and he was present
by Com ion ! s-Bonded by Commissioner
the� ed �ct. Motion carried 3-2
pbell anner voted no).
It w. oved b ommissio DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmi•' •o• ;;_ •s Planning Commission Resolution No.
de 3494 , /'i 1 Amendment #3, ZOA 09-494 to revise
ed Residential Zone Ridgeline Map, and an Addendum
carried 5-0.
rega''ng short-term rentals in the R-1 zone.
icated that this item and the next (Item C) were both issues
ing Commission asked staff to address and come back to
the ` riginally planned to bring both of these issues to the Planning
Com on today, but decided to wait after looking at the timing a little bit
further. Typically the newspaper will carry stories of upcoming items for
consideration the day before or the day of the meeting. Since yesterday
was a holiday and City Hall was closed, and today the department was in
training for the bulk of the day, they thought it would be more respectful of
concerned citizens' comments, which typically come in as soon as they
see it in the newspaper, to go ahead and hold the meeting on such short
notice. They would still see both of these items, but if their expectations
8
CITY Of P'riLffl OESEPT
73-510 FREI) WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
infoipalm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: February 17, 2010
Eagle 6.5, LLC
c/o Ted Lennon
74001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, California 92210
Re: TT 34949, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494
48-099 Highway 74
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of February 16, 2010:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED TT 34949, DA 02-01
AMENDMENT #3, AND ZOA 09-494 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2520. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2
(COMMISSIONERS CAMPBELL AND TANNER VOTED NO).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
"MINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
PLAr ZING COMMISSION RESOLUTION tn. 2520
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENIYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
34943 WITH ASSOCIATED CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE SEIR FOR THE
STONE EAGLE PROJECT, THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 02-01, AND A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
REVISE THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE RIDGELINE
MAP, WHICH ALLOWS 7.7-ACRES TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO SIX (6)
RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
CASE NOS. TT 34949, DA 02-01 AMENDMMENT #3, AND ZOA 09-494
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 15th of December, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
January 19, 2010, to consider the request of EAGLE 6.5, LLC; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of Tentative Tract Map
34943, Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494:
1. That the proposed project is not consistent with the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone development standard of one dwelling unit per five acres of
land area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That Tentative Tract Map 34943, Development Agreemenj 02-01 Amendment
#3, and ZOA 09-494 (Ridgeline Map Revision) are hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of February, 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: DELUNA, SCHMIDT, LIMONT
NOES: CAMPBELL, TANNER
ABSENT: NONE /
ABSTAIN: NONE / (, C)
M. CONNOR LIMONT, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
' MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action:
Request for consideration of the December 15, 2009 meeting minutes.
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the December 15, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried
5-0.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PP 03-19 — SCOTELLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Applicant
Request for approval of a two-year time extension for Phase
III (one remaining building) of Case No. PP 03-19 (which
allowed the construction of five office buildings totaling
53,662 gross square feet) on property located at 39-800
Portola.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner
DeLuna, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion
carried 5-0.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
...*► A. Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3 and ZOA 09-494 —
EAGLE 6.5, LLC, c/o TED LENNON, Applicant
(Continued from December 15, 2009)
Request for a recommendation to the City Council of approval
of a tentative tract map with associated CEQA addendum to
the SEIR for Stone Eagle, third amendment to Development
Agreement 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development), and a zoning
ordinance amendment to revise the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone Ridgeline Map to allow the subdivision of
7.7 acres into six residential Tots. Subject property is located
2
MINUTES (,
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2010
west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of
Old Stone Trail (APN 652-090-002).
Mr. Stendell noted that this item was continued from the December 15,
2009 meeting. At that time the Planning Commission directed staff to offer
some site visits to Commissioners who wanted them to examine some of
the outcroppings that would be effected and see how the pads would sit
into the property, as well as to conduct a study session, which was last
Thursday, January 14, 2010. The most notable changes that he believed
the Planning Commissioners had been made aware of was the proposal
by Stone Eagle to alter the project that would allow a little bit smaller pads,
a preferable route for the road coming behind Pad 4 and creating a new
Pad 2, which eliminated about 3,000 yards of fill within that canyon. Mr.
Lennon also had the project engineer take a look at some of the pad
heights and was actually able to lower the pad heights slightly on Pad 3,
so the proposal that was presented in concept at the Study Session last
Thursday had been refined a little bit from the original. Staff felt it was
much better direction. It eliminated a series of three retaining walls in the
old project. It got rid of an approximate 12,000-13,000 square foot pad and
replaced it with a new 8,200 square foot pad. That was the most notable
change to the physical project. Staff felt this was a better solution. The fill
went from approximately 12,000 yards to 9,000 and then offset by the cut.
They now have a project that has an approximate 1,500 square foot fill
import to the project.
Staff recommended approval of the project as revised. At the first hearing
two additional conditions were entered into the record. One related to the
WQMP. They were on the record from the first hearing, but staff had
requested to add a condition about the water quality management plan
and if this project was approved, staff still recommended that condition.
The other condition discussed was about the bike path and determining a
dollar amount for an in -lieu fee. In addition, staff added, "That the
applicant shall not disturb any significant outcroppings as identified on the
ridgeline exhibit dated July 2008, which he thought was a result of some
good dialogue at the study session last Thursday. Staff recommended
approval as conditioned.
Commissioner DeLuna noted that Mr. Stendell said there would be 1,500
yards of dirt imported and asked if that equaled 150 truck loads. Mr.
Stendell replied yes.
Commissioner Schmidt asked which two lots were going to be altered, 2
and 3. Mr. Stendell said it most directly effects 2 and 4. Four would
actually shrink a little bit to accommodate the road to the rear and not
disturbing the outcropping that they were seeing. Those were the most
3
MINUTES (..
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2010
directly impacted Tots by the rerouting of the road. Pad 3 he didn't think
changed too much on the rerouting, except the developer took it upon
himself to take a look at the lot and see if he could make it a little bit
smaller and lower it a little bit as that is the highest lot on the map. They
were able to lower it a bit and cut it down in size to approximately 10,000
square feet; before it was about 13,000 square feet. Commissioner
Schmidt asked if it was still a split level design. Mr. Stendell said yes.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if Lot 2 was still split. Mr. Stendell said no.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for the total pad area of Lot 2. Mr. Stendell
stated 8,217. Commissioner Schmidt noted that was a significant
reduction.
There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the
public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. TED LENNON, 47870 Silver Spur Trail in Palm Desert, stated
that Mr. Stendell did a wonderful job presenting the project. The
major changes came out of the study session when there was
concern about Lot 3 being too visible, although the line of sight
studies showing the change, it was a drastic change. They actually
in their original line of sight he saw that the engineer had used 26
foot houses and the houses are limited to 20 feet. He actually
offered on Pad 3, they lowered the height of the pad five feet on the
upper level. In addition, they could reduce the house size down to
18 feet, so they will pick up seven feet on that particular lot. As
indicated, Lot 2 is probably 25% to 30% less in size and it wasn't a
split level and it reduced drastically the grading change. And
actually on this plan, they've shown the road on the right around Lot
4, that road goes away. That was not in the final plan. So they
reduced the lot sizes and reduced the grading infill by something
like 70-80% and he thought they still had a great project. The only
other thing else mentioned was staff had recommended that they
give up their remaining 14 density lots and he had suggested a 2
for 1. They would like to keep 3 lots to be able to do something
around the clubhouse; that was important when the clubhouse
finally gets done, they would like to do that as an exception. He
thanked them.
Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any questions of the applicant at
this time.
Commissioner Schmidt asked when the road was rerouted, taking it away
from where it did go and coming back around, she was looking at a map
that has quite a large outcropping of rocks there. It looked like that was
where the road is going. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Stendell said
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2010
she was correct. There is a very large outcropping and when they
discussed this at the very beginning stages, that was something they said
they were getting kind of close to this back outcropping, so that was
probably what drove staying away from that as a priority. That was why
they went from a pad area for Lot 4 of approximately 12,843 and on the
new proposal 10,130. That was reduced to accommodate it. He said this
is a beautiful outcropping and was probably one of the bigger ones on the
property.
Chairperson Tanner reiterated that they wouldn't impede the outcropping
with the road. Mr. Stendell said no. Chairperson Tanner asked if that
answered Commissioner Schmidt's question. She said yes.
There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked for
any testimony in FAVOR of the project.
MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS, 72622 Pitahaya Street in Palm Desert,
stated that he is the owner of the entity that has the adjacent
property to this proposed additional tract map. He was in favor of
this. He really appreciated what staff had done in the sense of
designing this with Mr. Lennon to not change the outcroppings and
the ridgelines and to design his pads within those appropriate areas
that wouldn't affect those ridgelines and outcroppings. He thought
this was the right way and right direction for the hillside and they
have their 40 acres and they bring something to staff, they would
like to fall within the same type of requirements because he
believed protecting that hillside was very important. He thought the
applicant had done that with what he proposed. He was in favor of
it and didn't have a problem with it because of the way they've
taken the due diligence to do what they've done.
Chairperson Tanner thanked him for his comments and asked if anyone
else wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed
project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public
hearing and asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell stated that the staff report was excellent from the
beginning. Then after visiting the site with staff and the developer pointing
out the different outcroppings and the ridgeline so that they could
understand it a lot more, it was very clear to her. They had the study
session that the Planning Commission wanted to have and a lot of the
questions were answered. The changes that were made in the area that
the developer was going to do, plus Mr. Lennon's expertise and
experience they knew what he could do and not do, and she was all in
favor of the project, as is.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19.2010
Commissioner Limont said she stopped a little short of getting into
outcroppings and where the pads go, although she knew they worked
hard on all of that, plus the roads and resituating. She stopped with the
fact that it is a seven and a half acre parcel that they are looking to put six
homes on, which just flies in the face of everything they've held dear to
them for the Cahuilla Hills. The difficulty she had was there wasn't a doubt
in her mind that what Ted Lennon builds is always high quality. That
wasn't the issue. The issue is they are up zoning and looking to put six
homes on a piece of property that is at the maximum allowed two,
basically one and a half. So, unfortunately, she didn't have the same
approval thought as her fellow Commissioner at this time.
Chairperson Tanner asked if there was any more discussion. There was
no response. He said they had a motion on the floor to approve as
submitted and entertained a second. Commissioner Schmidt said she
would second it.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by
staff. Chairperson Tanner asked for any further discussion. There was no
response. He called for the vote. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote
(Commissioners DeLuna, Limont and Schmidt voting no).
Commissioner Campbell noted that Commissioner Schmidt seconded the
motion and asked how she could say nay. Commissioner Schmidt
explained she wanted to get it to a vote. It doesn't mean you're in favor if
you second a motion. Chairperson Tanner concurred. Mr. Erwin clarified
that the motion was denied. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was
even if the approval motion was seconded. Mr. Erwin said that was correct.
Seconding the motion got it to the floor for a vote. Chairperson Tanner
reiterated that the motion did not carry and was denied. Ms. Aylaian said
that staff would prepare a resolution of denial to bring back for the next
meeting. Staff asked for clarification if a motion was needed to direct staff
to prepare a resolution. Mr. Erwin stated that technically it wasn't needed. It
would be satisfactory if they wished to make a motion to deny it. He
believed the outcome would be approval of that motion. So they would just
prepare the resolution of denial and bring it back.
B. Case No. CUP 08-433 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for revocation of an existing conditional use permit
for a massage therapy establishment within an existing office
6
MINUTES € t
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 19.2010
appointed Commissioner Schmidt as the Project Area 4 Committee
representative.
XII. COMMENTS
1. Commissioner DeLuna stated that there is an obvious omission in
the Hillside Ordinance that she thought needed to be addressed so
that outcroppings aren't treated any differently than ridgelines. She
didn't think they needed to reinvent the wheel. A great number of
cities have already addressed this very issue in their ordinances and
she would like to move to direct staff to revisit the Hillside Ordinance
with regard to outcroppings. There are several cities that have done
this and she would be happy to help staff review the hillside
ordinances of those cities. She has downloaded several, most
notably Truckee, Nevada, Belvedere and Apple Valley, California.
She had about six or seven and they had specific ordinances. She
would be happy to share them with staff.
Mr. Erwin recommended that a motion be made to add this to the
agenda so that the Planning Commission could discuss it.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, adding discussion of a proposed Hillside Ordinance Amendment
to the agenda by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0.
2. Chairperson Tanner had a comment he wanted to go on record. He
was a bit surprised and thought he should have said what he
thought about the application they had from Mr. Lennon. He was
strongly in favor of it and he held his comments and wanted to go on
record by saying that he was definitely in favor of it. The applicant
did comply with all requested information. He did not attend the
study session, and apologized for that, but again, he wanted to go
on record by just stating that they failed to take staff's
recommendation and they did apologize for doing things that maybe
they shouldn't have done on the ridgelines, but he thought it would
have been a great project. He asked for any other comments.
1. Continued: Mr. Erwin said it would be appropriate at this time to
consider Commissioner DeLuna's motion to direct staff since it was
added to the agenda. She made the motion and it needed a second.
Chairperson Tanner said it gets seconded and then he calls for the
vote. Mr. Erwin concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they
could have discussion. Mr. Erwin further clarified that it is a second
motion to direct staff to provide the ordinance amendment adding
14
January 19, 2010
Planning Commissioners
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Stone Eagle TT 34943, DA 0201 #3, ZO,
Dear Planning Commissioners:
9114/10
TRB
Please forgive me for not addressing my concerns earlier, however, due to no fault but
my own; I did not receive the staff report until yesterday. 1 also regret not being able to
attend the study session due to scheduling conflicts. As an owner of property adjacent to
Stone Eagle I am however, intimately familiar with the project and the developer's
methods.
In the past thirty years of real estate development, I have made hundreds of applications,
and reviewed several hundred more. Without question this application is the most
disingenuous I have ever encountered. While staff made a gallant attempt to support
this project and should receive a commendation for creativity, the staff report is
inaccurate and misleading. Please allow me this opportunity to explain.
When the original project was approved under the zoning created for its purpose the
Hillside Planned Residential Zoning: Policy 1 was as follows: "In order to maintain the
natural contours of the hillsides, developments shall be designed as to require minimal
grading and avoid a padding or staircase effect as a result of extensive cut and fill
slopes" EIR III-2. The developer was conditioned to avoid ridgelines and outcroppings
and minimize grading. One only has to look at what the developer produced immediately
adjacent to this application site. Not only did he completely obliterate outcroppings but
the stair casing is so prominent it looks like rice patties. Staff accepted insufficient
ambiguous drawings, as they have with this application, and either were unable or
unwilling to enforce the conditions.
The ridgeline map depicting the sites is of such poor quality it is hard to discern if it was
an aerial photograph. The detailed plan then switches to a topo only format, since an
aerial at that scale would be too revealing. To state that none of the outcroppings will be
disturbed is ludicrous. Staff determined that two pad heights are too high; two driveway
entrance radii are too small, drainage is not shown, cut slopes are too steep and onsite
retention is not shown. When the proposed conditions are incorporated in the design,
the disturbance will be monumental.
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760.773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007
TRB
The density argument is also weak. While the developer tries to distance himself from
the golf course, since he has left us with an environmental disaster in foreclosure. The
very same golf course is feeding the density absurdity. Please remember that he
deeded 392 acres into conservation as a condition of the initial project.
The bike path condition need not be a part of this application since it was conditioned on
the original project. Staff's attempt to add it as a benefit is false.
The findings are also unfounded. Protecting natural and scenic recourses while limiting
grading are not accomplished by Tess overall units, since the original number of units are
already graded. Adding six more home sites is five more than allowed.
The CEQA analysis is also flawed since the lead agency was Fish and Game, not the
City of Palm Desert. Furthermore, the conditions outlined in the analysis (3) c and d are
conditions that occur as evidenced by the Maintenance Agreement.
The subject property should be the "poster child" for ridges and outcroppings, the very
thing we are trying to preserve. The developer has already shown his idea of minimal
grading avoiding outcroppings and staircase effects by the existing pads that have
obliterated all of the land features. Friend of the Desert Mountains...I don't think so.
Please do not send a "no" to the City Council, send a "Hell No!"
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Bartlett
a Palm Desert resident
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760.773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007
CITY Of P
will DESERT
73-510 FREI) WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
into(' palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: January 20, 2010
Eagle 6.5, LLC
c/o Ted Lennon
74001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, California 92210
Re: TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494
48-099 Highway 74
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of January 19, 2010:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ADOPTION AT THE NEXT MEETING.
If you have any questions regarding this action, please call me at (760) 346-0611 extension
481.
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
"HINTED ON REEYRFD PIPER
CITY Of PflLffl OESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: December 16, 2009
Eagle 6.5, LLC
c/o Ted Lennon
74001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, California 92210
Re: TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494
48-099 Highway 74
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of December 15, 2009:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, CONTINUED THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 19, 2010, AND INSTRUCTED STAFF TO
SCHEDULE A STUDY SESSION AND FIELD VISIT PRIOR TO THE
JANUARY 19 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
If you have any questions regarding this action, please give me a call at (760) 346-0611
ext. 481.
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
`Z MINTED all 'WIRED PAPER
MINUTES'
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
B. Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3 and ZOA 09-494 —
EAGLE 6.5, LLC, c/o TED LENNON, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to the City Council of approval
of a tentative tract map with associated CEQA addendum to
the SEIR for Stone Eagle, third amendment to Development
Agreement 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development), and a zoning
ordinance amendment to revise the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone Ridgeline Map to allow the subdivision of
7.7 acres into six residential lots. Subject property is located
west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of
Old Stone Trail (APN 652-090-002).
Senior Management Analyst Ryan Stendell thoroughly reviewed the staff
report and background of the case. He added a condition to the Public
Works Department section, "Prior to issuance of a drainage permit, a
water quality management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department for review and approval." He also indicated that the developer
raised an interesting question with regard to the condition for the bike
path. The condition states that the developer will help the City with gaining
an easement. But in the next condition, it says no occupancy permits for
any future homes will be granted until those public improvements are
done. So the question came up that he didn't have control of whether or
not they could get that easement and what should they do in that
circumstance. That raised an interesting point. Discussing it with
Engineering, Planning and the applicant, staff felt that if the Planning
Commission were to approve this recommendation, that they include in
their motion that prior to the City Council meeting, language be added to
the construction requirement section of the Public Works conditions, that
if the developer cannot procure those easements, that a bond be placed
on file with the Public Works Department for the amount of the bike path
so that the City could work on the easements, and if we were to get them,
the City could complete the work. That wouldn't hold up the developer on
future homes that would occupy the site.
Staff recommended approval of the findings and approval to the City
Council of TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3 and ZOA 09-494, subject
to conditions.
Commissioner DeLuna asked about the cost for the proposed bike trail.
Mr. Stendell said it hadn't been defined yet. A dg (decomposed granite)
bike path was being proposed, which is just a rural dirt bike path. This
came up yesterday and staff didn't have that figure. That is why staff
requested that it be defined prior to the City Council meeting.
6
MINUTES (.` i1
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
Commissioner DeLuna asked if CVWD (Coachella Valley Water District)
owned it now. Mr. Stendell answered most of it. Commissioner DeLuna
said that theoretically the City could pull that out of any negotiation with
Stone Eagle and the City could negotiate directly with CVWD and with
money from Parks & Recreation or the trails fund. That could be
addressed outside and not have to make it part of this or a concession of
the developer at all to even make it an issue. Mr. Stendell concurred. He
indicated that the developer is willing to work with the City on it; it was a
condition on the original project and a nexus was there. Stone Eagle is still
willing to work with the City on it. He confirmed that he didn't know the
cost.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the terms "ridgelines" and "outcroppings"
were legal terms or geological terms and asked who determined what was
a ridgeline and what was an outcropping. Mr. Stendell explained that the
actual definition of a ridgeline was incorporated into the 2007 Hillside
Planned Residential zone update. He didn't have it. Commissioner
Schmidt read 25.15.015 Definition of Hillside Ridge, "A ridgeline that is
formed by the junction of two or more sloping plains that project outward
from a mountain range and descend toward the valley floor, more
particularly identified on the exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential
Zone Ridges on file in the office of the City Clerk. Ordinance 1136 Exhibit
B 2007." Commissioner DeLuna asked if they received copies of that. The
answer was yes.
Back to the question of what determines whether it's an outcropping or
ridgeline, Commissioner DeLuna said if that was the definition of a
ridgeline, what is the definition of an outcropping? Mr. Stendell indicated
that it isn't defined in the code, but was very easily defined via numerous
Internet encyclopedias and was defined as, "An outcropping can be
defined as a rock formation that appears above the surface of the
surrounding land." He said that usually when you hear the term
outcropping, there is a small pile of rocks or a big pile of rocks. But looking
at the screen, there was a good example of what staff's intent was. When
they talk about a ridgeline, they could obviously see what it was when they
are standing back. Standing back, it's very easy to see what ridgelines
are. When they get to the lower parcels, like Stone Eagle's, the definition
of a ridge is much harder to accompany because they have main ridges
and several outcroppings, which are large rock formations. Both are fairly
sacred, but connecting the dots between outcroppings was not necessarily
the right thing to do.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it was fair to say that ridges are
outcroppings, but not all outcroppings are ridges. Mr. Stendell said yes.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that a lot hangs on whether something is a
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
ridgeline or an outcropping and she was trying to determine specifically
what the difference is because a lot hangs on the difference. Mr. Stendell
said that ultimately, the difference is that each specific case...he thought
what she was alluding to was they didn't want to set precedence. This
case is unique in that they've extensively studied the site and identified
what they now believe to be the main ridge and then that comes to both
Planning Commission and City Council for review. This was one staff
member's opinion, albeit they are the Planning Commission to decipher
what they were presenting. There is a certain level of review given by the
City's commissions, committees and Council to confirm what they are
presenting. In this case, he stood before them saying staff made an error.
There have been other circumstances that never made it to Planning
Commission because staff simply confirmed what the ridgeline map said
by saying that's a ridge, or something has made it to Planning
Commission and they reconfirmed what the ridge is. Staff felt these
circumstances are different and went through an extreme level of scrutiny.
They have an exhibit called The Ridgeline Exhibit from the developer that
shows both what is there, what is proposed, and what are outcroppings.
That to him is what became apparent once he was all over this site.
Commissioner DeLuna asked who decides in the final analysis when they
go to say someone can build or they can't build, who decides that it is a
ridgeline and not an outcropping, because they could set a precedent. Mr.
Stendell replied that the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City
Council, bear the burden of deciding what a ridgeline or outcropping is.
Ms. Aylaian said they rely on the Zoning Ordinance, which in this case is a
map. The Zoning Ordinance refers to the attached exhibit which is a map
and it shows a red line where there are ridges and where there are not, so
that anytime someone comes in and says they are interested in building
on their parcel on the hill, staff pulls up the map to see if there are any red
lines going through it. If there is a red line going through it, they say they
can't build on that. What they are trying to do here is correct that map,
which is the exhibit in an area where they believe they have the red lines
in the wrong place. So that is the defining factor as to whether or not
someone can build on it. They can't build on it if the map to the ordinance
shows that there is a red line there.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it required a zoning ordinance amendment
if they determined that for instance if they were saying staff erred in calling
something a ridgeline that's not. It's interpretive and if the Planning
Commission considers that a ridgeline, then did it require a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to annex a portion of the property. Commissioner
DeLuna clarified that she was trying to determine if they were setting a
precedent. She was also trying to determine who decides. She knew they
said there was a map with red lines, but what if someone challenged that.
8
MINUTES ti
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
Ms. Aylaian explained that staff could have had this stand alone as two
separate issues. One, they could have said they erred in preparing the
map that is part of the zoning ordinance and they need to correct that. The
area where they erred is right here, and here is where they recommend
that the ridgeline should be. That cleans up our ordinance and we
continue to use that to enforce for anybody who comes and wants to
develop anywhere in the hillside. That is our exhibit. That's what prohibits
them from building there. Then as a separate issue, staff would have
come to them and said that Stone Eagle proposes a modification to their
development agreement and a new parcel map and here's what they want
to do. Staff just brought them at the same time. She could tell them that
not only is it not uncommon, she would say that every property owner who
has come to them since the Zoning Ordinance ridgeline prohibition has
been passed who owns property up there with a ridgeline running through
it shown on the map has come and said we believe your map is wrong. In
every instance staff has gone out into the field and done the same
analysis Mr. Stendell was talking about, they had done a site survey and
walked the site, and said no, we stand by the map and the zoning
ordinance and we will not recommend to the Planning Commission or to
the City Council that they change the ordinance because it is correct in our
opinion. This is an instance where they came in and said we believe you
are wrong and we've taken a look and agreed. Staff believed this needed
to be cleaned up regardless of the action taken on Stone Eagle's
application in order to correct the ordinance that has been adopted.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if they should bifurcate the issues.
Commissioner Schmidt said absolutely. Mr. Stendell said they could, but
explained that it wasn't uncommon for staff to bring a project that requires
a zoning ordinance amendment or a general plan amendment to the
Planning Commission. Almost 90% of the housing development in the
north sphere had to have that same condition. When they had the General
Plan Amendment going through, they had numerous projects coming
through. So they could split or not split them. As Ms. Aylaian indicated,
this recommendation of the ridgeline could be recommended
independently of this project.
Commissioner Schmidt pointed out that staff brought the Planning
Commission a sweeping proposal which amends an existing ordinance of
the City, and she didn't think he erred and was appalled that he would say
that; she thought they all probably overlooked outcroppings when they
were writing the ordinance. The reality is that they are seeing an
outcropping cannot create a ridgeline, whether it's a pile as big as their
desk, or as big as this building. That was very dangerous to her. She
thought that was what he was getting at. If they need to amend the
ordinance, they need to amend the ordinance. They did not need to put it
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
into the approval or disapproval of a subdivision. At this point in time, a
couple of questions she would like answered is if Stone Eagle actually
owns the 7.7 acres or if it was a condition on an option to buy it. That was
a very important fact to her. She, for instance, could go out into the
parking lot here and ask for it to be subdivided and put into an R-1 zone.
She read in the documentation that once it is effective, they will own the
property. But she did not read anywhere that they presently own the
property and she wasn't too interested in changing an existing, because
that took years to get to happen and it was going to open Pandora's box,
whether they realized it or not, to anyone they have had past
controversies with that they have turned down by arbitrarily saying this is a
ridgeline, this red line counts. They are now saying that these ridgelines
don't count, so they are changing the ordinance. They cannot do it that
way in her opinion. Maybe they have to change the ordinance, but it
should not be part of this package. Mr. Stendell said he tended to agree
with her on the outcroppings and was something that maybe in the future
they may want to take a look at to the ordinance, although it poses a very
difficult problem as far as identification and not one he thought they could
tackle at a staff level. However, he didn't think the application errs or even
destroys one existing outcropping. Where the error was made was in
putting lines between them. He pulled up a document that showed the
outcroppings as identified by the project engineer and some of the lines
that staff made in between them.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification if that was the developer's
project engineer or the City's engineer. Mr. Stendell said it was the
developer's project engineer. They could see in the topo the natural flat
areas were where they located the pads, which don't actually interfere with
any of the significant or any of the outcroppings on the property. It wasn't
the outcroppings. They could go back and amend the City's Hillside
Residential Zone and identify dots on the Hillside Planned Residential
zone to identify outcroppings. As presented, the six lots wouldn't even
interfere with those. The error was in putting lines between them and
playing connect the dots. Chairperson Tanner said creating a ridge.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that one of the ridgelines in the ordinance
as redlined crosses the road. Mr. Stendell said yes. Commissioner
Schmidt said it didn't show as outcroppings on the map and asked if it was
a ridgeline with a road cut through it. Mr. Stendell said no, there were
several of these outcroppings with lines drawn through them as staff
presented it. They were now stating that the main ridge runs in a north -
south direction as proposed in new exhibit. That was apparent when going
onto the site, that the main ridge was as identified in blue.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that on Sunday she hiked to every flag that
was there. Commissioner Schmidt indicated she saw her. Commissioner
10
MINUTES „y
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
DeLuna said that was another question she had way down the line about
the actual location of the pads. There was no way they were going to get a
10,000 square foot pad without obliterating some of those outcroppings,
period. So if they don't destroy ridgelines, why can they then destroy
outcroppings? Mr. Stendell said that as proposed in the engineering, they
weren't destroying any of those outcroppings and he also hiked the site.
He used an exhibit to show the property and the pads that the developer
and engineer proposed. Disturbance in the hillside was one thing; he
understood there would be grading of the road that it would be cut in. The
developer has done a careful job of locating these pads in the most
sensible areas that are possible. Could they be Tess of an impact? Sure.
Commissioner DeLuna appreciated all the work he has gone to. She just
knew having climbed over most of them to get to the different sites there
was no way to put a 10,000 square foot pad in without wiping some of
them out. And questions she had down the line included about how much
has to be moved, what's going to happen, and they were nowhere near
that level of question yet. She was still concerned about how they define
what they're moving and how they define what they can destroy and what
they can't. To her, if a ridgeline is sacred, why isn't an outcropping. That's
why she asked if it was a legal definition, a geological definition, an
engineering definition, a staff definition? She didn't see where for
purposes of this discussion...it's a distinction without a difference.
Mr. Bagato said they don't want to disturb the outcroppings. The issue
becomes connecting two outcroppings and then drawing a line and then
saying that line is a ridge. That's where the error is made. They weren't
advocating destroying outcroppings or building on a ridge. The error was
made by just drawing a line connecting two points and saying that's a
ridge. That's where the error was made. Commissioner DeLuna said she
understood that and that's why she was suggesting that they bifurcate
those two issues, because whether or not they are destroying a ridge may
not have anything to do with this particular development, or it might not
have anything to do with Lot 4, but it might with Lot 6. With Commissioner
Schmidt, she agreed that they were talking about two separate issues and
the scope was far too broad to try to tie into any one development.
Commissioner Limont said she had a list of questions as well and it
seemed that this is a much bigger subject and a larger issue for them to
come to a conclusion this evening. She suggested that they continue this
and ask for a study session so that they can become more familiar. She
agreed with her fellow commissioners that this is a really difficult subject
and not every ridgeline is a hogs back, which is a trail she used to hike,
but there aren't those definitions and Commissioner Schmidt is right. Is it
the size of this table, the size of this room? There wasn't a definition. She
asked that they continue it. Commissioner DeLuna strongly agreed.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
Commissioner Schmidt asked if they could take a little time here this
evening, everyone is here, and ask a few of those questions short of a
study session. Commissioner Limont agreed and said staff could come
back and get those answered. Commissioner Schmidt said they could
take half an hour and ask staff questions. Mr Bagato noted that it is a
public hearing and needed to be opened before they continue the public
hearing.
Chairperson Tanner requested clarification that they needed to open the
public hearing to get further discussion on these items. Mr. Bagato said
that they could. continue to ask staff questions and then typically they open
the public hearing and continue it with comments. Commissioner Schmidt
said she had some questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner said he would
open it and then continue it. Mr. Bagato said when the public hearing is
opened, they typically ask the applicant to come up and give any
additional information, and then the public. Mr. Stendell said that if they
could identify as many questions looming out as possible, staff could
address anything that needed to be addressed.
Commissioner DeLuna asked how much of the hillside terrain would need
to be altered, moved or removed. How much grading would they do; how
many rocks would they move? What was going to happen to that? Were
they looking at a million tons, half a million tons? Were they going to plant
it right next to it so they were going to leave no boulders there and fill
crevasses in, or what was the plan? Mr. Stendell said there is a net 4,500
cubic yards of import per the tentative tract map. They could ask some of
the more technical staff to be on hand so that they can answer some of
those questions more in depth. It looked like there were 7,500 cubic yards
of cut, 12,000 total yards of fill, leaving a net result of 4,500 cubic yards of
import.
Chairperson Tanner asked if six Tots were proposed. Mr. Stendell said yes.
Commissioner Schmidt indicated that on Lots 2 and 3 there are two
distinct pad areas defined and asked why. Mr. Stendell explained that it is
very common in hillside development to find split level pads. It is a
technique that can actually help the design of a hillside home. They can
build the home into the mountainside. Staff has done an extensive amount
of research in the Coachella Valley on hillside development.
Commissioner Schmidt said that basically it is a bi-level. Mr. Stendell said
they could turn out to be bi-level, but that wasn't necessarily the end
result. They were required to maintain a height from the approved pad
height, so it wasn't as if they could take the outer edge of the lower edge
and go up to the approved height at the higher level and make a big box.
They have to maintain height levels based on the approved pad height, so
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
it allows the stair -stepping and a form of a building that could blend into
the hillside better. It was also very popular to construct the home on an
upper pad or a lower pad and have the outdoor amenities such as pools
and barbecue areas on the lower pads.
With the overall height restriction for Lot 3, Commissioner Schmidt asked
if it applied to the upper pad or the lower pad. Mr. Stendell said both. If the
approved height was 20 feet, they could only go 20 above the pad height.
He was seeing a pad height of 759, so they could go up 20 feet on that
one, and on the top pad, they were again restricted to 20 feet above that
pad height. That wouldn't allow them to create a very large block in a two-
story home. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was fair to say that in a
one -level pad, the overall profile of the house would be lower. Mr. Stendell
said it could be, but it depended on the view, where they were looking,
where they're standing, but sure, they were dealing with a one level pad.
Commissioner Limont asked if there was a provision in the development
agreement that allows Stone Eagle to annex additional land and use their
left over lots. Mr. Stendell said no. That was why there was a development
agreement amendment and the proposed amendment prepares all the
mechanics for that to happen. He confirmed there was nothing in the
original development agreement.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if there was an answer to Commissioner
Schmidt's question about the property ownership. Mr. Stendell said the
owner was Stone Eagle 6.5 LLC. He would let the applicant address the
ownership, but his understanding was that the developer owns it.
Regarding the one dwelling unit per five acres on a stand-alone project of
this size, the 7.7 acres could only then have one dwelling unit. They have
other people come before the Planning Commission asking to develop
their one lot and they have not given it. In order now to give six units on
the 7.7 acres, she would need a compelling reason to make an exception.
She understood giving lots for development density in other areas was a
compensating balance, but those are hillsides and once they are built on
they are built on forever. Mr. Stendell said that in general, no one has
been more critical of this application then him. He has lived the other
applications and understands the implications to property owners within
the hillside. He approached this case extremely sensitively and at times
thought there would be no potential way to get this to work for those very
reasons. However, in this case with the reduced density, they do feel they
are in a position where they could present something that could be
approvable and essentially six units is costing them nine. It was also
assisting the City with a bike path. Commissioner DeLuna said the bike
path they could take out because they could have that independently of
13
MINUTES
PALM_DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
this most likely. It's a very nice thing for the developer to be willing to do,
but she didn't think one thing necessarily hung on the other. Chairperson
Tanner indicated that the way it is presented it does. Mr. Stendell said it
would come at a cost to the City. Commissioner Limont noted that it could
be taken out. Chairperson Tanner agreed. Commissioner Limont pointed
out it is CVWD's easement. Chairperson Tanner said that at this point, it is
a developer requirement to put in the bike path. Commissioner DeLuna
thought it was worded that he would participate. Mr. Stendell confirmed it
was on his dime to complete it. Commissioner DeLuna reiterated that they
didn't know the cost, but he would bond around that. Mr. Stendell
concurred. He assumed that Mr. Lennon had done his own due diligence
as to the cost. The previous project engineer knew what it would cost. Mr.
Stendell wasn't a project engineer and didn't presume to know the
developer's cost. Commissioner DeLuna noted that there are bigger
issues.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that there are 46 actually constructed
homes there. Mr. Stendell didn't know how many had been constructed,
but there were 46 graded lots at this time. Commissioner Schmidt counted
22 vacant pad sites including seven or eight right along where the
extension of that roadway would go. She also noted that they've had a
complaint from one of the existing property owners. She asked if Mr.
Stendell knew the location of 48387 Old Stone Trail. Mr. Stendell pointed
out the general location of it. He explained that there are several homes
that face onto Old Stone Trail and it could be one of the developed units.
Commissioner Schmidt said she would appreciate knowing that
somewhere along the line. Mr. Stendell said there are three existing
homes on Old Stone Trail and he would make sure which actual unit the
complaint came from. For the record, he said the email that was
transmitted to the Commission as correspondence on that discussed the
increased traffic flow as a result of the development of future lots. As
presented with the reduction in density and in talking with the City's
Engineers, there is no increased volume issue with Old Stone Trail. Six
additional lots wouldn't create traffic that would hinder or be a negative
impact to Old Stone Trail. But he would find out which one it is.
Commissioner Schmidt asked in Mr. Stendell's overall density
assessment, moving from 11 to 13.6, if done, would represent 710 plus
acres instead of 703. The golf course, the proposed club house, the
existing pro shop, the parking Tots, roads, open areas, entrance,
guardhouse, etc., are they not deducted from the gross buildable area?
Mr. Stendell said that typically when they look at a density standard, they
look at the gross project. He did extract the golf course area from his
original analysis. It got more complex as he extracted different things. If
they are just talking about the base of the mountain before getting up to
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
the golf course, they are talking about 63 acres. So essentially they start
coming to the same analysis with the reduction. It may not come out to
13.6, but they were still going down in a reduction. He could produce a
couple of different scenarios. Commissioner Schmidt agreed with his
premise, but if they were going on a public record with a public hearing,
the figures should be correct and if those should be backed out and then
come to some sort of net buildable allowance, that's what should be in the
record. Mr. Stendell said he would come up with several different ways of
analysis. What they see in the staff report is consistent with the way staff
reviews density in projects.
Commissioner Limont asked about the secondary and emergency access.
If that's provided, she asked staff how they make certain it was only for
Stone Eagle and not accessible by anyone else for any other reason. Mr.
Stendell said it is in place right now. Stone Eagle has its main access off
Highway 74 via the bridge that they constructed over the Palm Valley
Storm Channel. Secondary access for fire access uses the same
secondary access that Stone Eagle uses now coming down Calle de los
Campesinos, which goes over a different bridge down the road. So it
wouldn't change that and wouldn't open the gate.
Chairperson Tanner asked about building pad area maximum. Under the
Hillside Planned Residential zone it is 10,000 square feet. He asked if they
would be increasing the pad sizes to 13,000 square feet. Mr. Stendell said
there was no increase proposed to the HPR zone; this proposal as
presented uses standards that were approved in the original development
agreement for Stone Eagle. Hillside Planned Residential zone standards
can be amended and are typically as approved by the City Council, so in
2002, that is what they approved. They approved more for Stone Eagle in
the original development agreement. The Hillside zone in 2002 was very
different then the Hillside zone that exists now. There wasn't a limitation
on a 10,000 square foot pad, there wasn't a ridgeline exhibit, and there
wasn't a dwelling unit size requirement. Those all came later. Essentially,
by the way the developer crafted this application, it applies itself to
standards that were created in 2002 and not by the 2007 Hillside Planned
Residential zone. That's why he said there were two different ways to look
at this application. It becomes very critical which way they want to look at
it.
Commissioner DeLuna said she had another question/issue and it
dovetailed back to what she was asking earlier about the definition of a
ridgeline and an outcropping. For three of these Tots that are up higher,
depending on the definition of a ridgeline or outcropping, they might need
to consider the City ordinance depending how they define ridgeline. So
she thought that was something they would need to further explore and
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
she agreed with Commissioner Limont, either a study session or a fact
finding mission where two Planning Commissioners at a time could go to
the site and meet with the developer specifically about issues, or a study
session. She didn't have a preference, but they needed more information.
She wasn't comfortable making a decision at this point.
Commissioner Limont asked historically if we've in the past, and if he had
an example of amending a development agreement to annex land similar
to what they were being asked to do this evening. If so, if he does have a
previous example, that would be great if he would bring it. Mr. Stendell
noted our legal counsel has been with us the entire step of the way and
they would have alerted us to any potential liabilities in the way it is
crafted. He knew it could be done. Commissioner Limont said that wasn't
the issue. Have we done this in the past? They are looking to amend a
development agreement. Mr. Stendell indicated several development
agreements have been amended. Whether or not any dealt with
incorporating new land, he would find out.
Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any other questions for staff.
There was no response. Ms. Aylaian added that there was some
discussion about whether it was appropriate to handle the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment as a separate issue from the project consideration.
Typically they are handled together. They have many cases on specific
cases that required amendment to the Zoning Ordinance if they are
changing from a PR-5 to a PR-7. They usually lump them all together and
handle them together because it doesn't really make sense to change the
Zoning Ordinance for a project or for an unknown project or for a project
that may or may not ever come to pass because then they have
something standing out there that has been changed for no need. So they
usually lump them in together, but technically these are separate and
could be handled separately if the Commission has a strong opinion on
how it should be handled. Chairperson Tanner asked if they needed to
address the fact that this particular area is ridgeline area. It's in the
ridgeline area as opposed now to potentially going into a non-ridgeline
area. Did they need to address that prior to the annexation? Ms. Aylaian
said they need to address it at least simultaneously with the proposed
project. They couldn't approve the proposed project without changing the
Zoning Ordinance, because otherwise they would have approved building
on what technically the ordinance shows to be ridgeline and there is a
prohibition against that and there isn't an exceptions process for that.
They needed to at least, if not do one before the other, at least do them
simultaneously. Chairperson Tanner said it would be specifically on the
7.7 acres. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Stendell stated earlier
that they needed to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment with this
project to begin with. Ms. Aylaian agreed. Mr. Stendell noted that they
16
MINUTES gGk t,
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
could have had a public hearing A and B, and A could have been the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment and B could have been the project. The
way they chose to marry them was just the way typically of staff, but they
could separate them if there was a strong desire to do so.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it was a matter of convenience that they
were proposing to do the two together, because what she sees here
different from what may more typically happen when they have this
situation is that with hillside development, they've had some real specific
issues come before them previously that may come back based on the
definitions they come up with, so if they had a separate situation where
they dealt with only the definition of a ridgeline and whether or not there
was an error made or not made separate and apart from hearing it in
connection with this project, she thought in this instance it might be more
helpful. She thought on a case by case basis this was a little different from
what normally happens. Commissioner Schmidt said in other zones they
are predictable. They have a commercial pad on the valley floor. They are
now talking about hillsides that are hundreds of thousands of years old.
She lives on an alluvial fan and those outcroppings, as they dismiss them,
were put there she didn't know how many hundreds of thousands of years
ago and to mess around with them just isn't in her psyche. They have to
protect that up there. She wished it was someone else besides Ted
Lennon's group; it would be easier because tromping around up in there
she realized what a beautiful development that is. He takes great care. In
trying to walk around, they can't overlook the seriousness of what they're
doing and she liked slowing down. This has been in the works for three
years, yet their packet came last Friday for them to make a decision
tonight and she just couldn't. She would have to vote it down if they were
forced to vote as presented.
Commissioner Limont asked if it was appropriate to move for a
continuance. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they wanted to open the
public hearing and hear from the applicant and then continue it.
Chairperson Tanner asked if there was any more discussion for staff.
There wasn't. Mr. Stendell said he had his marching orders and would
take a crack at it. Commissioner Schmidt said she would do up her
questions and get them to him, those which they haven't asked.
Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. TED LENNON, President of Stone Eagle Development, 47870
Silver Spur Trail in Silver Spur Ranch, said he has been involved in
this project for a long time and has been in this city for a long time.
They approached this application in the spirit of the development
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
agreement as it was originally conceived. The development
agreement in his mind, and he's been doing this with the cities for
some time, is an agreement that allows a little bit of latitude for a
project when they are designing something, not to incorporate
every little detail; the City has to take care of a lot of different
projects. They tried to create a really terrific low density project. If
they go up to the golf course, he almost thought they didn't destroy
any rock outcroppings, they kept them and didn't reconfigure them.
Where they have changed things, they re -permeated the stone,
recreated the area. If they look at the retaining walls they created in
the lot subdivisions, they were all with big natural rock. When this
site was first put on, the first thing they did was they had a topo
map done and identified all the rock outcroppings and thought in
this plan they stayed away from probably 80% of the outcroppings
which stayed, and then they would recreate other outcroppings is
the history of how they've done the project.
To answer one of the questions, they've owned this property for a
long time. If they looked at the original CC&R's of the project, it
already has this property identified as being able to be brought into
the project. So the intent's been there a long time. They submitted
a long time ago. When the City came up with its ridgeline thing,
which he had no problem with, he was curious and came to the City
to see how it affected their properties. He was glad to see that they
weren't even included and they were part of their development and
weren't included in the original ridgelines. It was coming before City
Council two or three nights later, so they left the City believing they
weren't part of it. Somehow the consultants came in and drew more
lines and got approved by the City Council. He didn't find out until
four or five months later and ever since then they have been
complaining and asking people to go out. Some of the ridgelines
are actually in a canyon, a ravine. So they have been working on
this and trying to discuss and having engineering work done,
showing lines, going out on site visits with staff and people to come
to this stage. It wasn't like they knew about this and now they were
trying to fight it. From day one, they owned the land a long time
before this was enacted and they came in to see the ridgeline plan
and they had no lines on their property, so they had no concerns
about it.
Regarding outcroppings, Mr. Lennon said he would be happy to
show them that if it was going to take longer and more study
sessions to get them out to the site. They will have the engineers
maybe stake out some of the outcroppings of what gets saved and
they could kind of see how it works. They tried to minimize any kind
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
of import of earth to the site and they've worked with three different
engineers and changed the plan five different times. One of the
local guys who really does a great job at Bighorn siting the lots
looked at it for them. He hired Kristi Hanson to look at the lots to
come up with the best plan to do this. So they really spent a lot of
time and effort. If they look at their project, they have saved rock
outcroppings. He was confused how rock outcroppings have gotten
into the conversation, because they are in fact saving those. He
thought the only issue was how an error was made in the beginning
where they identified outcroppings and drew a line between them to
create a ridgeline. They own the land. They are trying to do the
project. Stone Eagle is a very difficult financial project because
there are so few residences. They talked about the density of the
project. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 to 1,000 acres of
additional land they had to acquire as mitigation for this property, so
they were talking about 1,700 or 1,800 acres of land that was set
aside. The golf course sits on a section of land 640 acres and it has
88 acres of turf on it. They set aside all that space as conservation
land up above so it would never be developed and they have this
site. If he was up there on the side of the hill, as they knew, as they
look up above it there are homes up on the hill that overlook this
project that they can see from everywhere. They've tried to be good
neighbors with Sommerset. He met with the former President and
asked him to go to the Board with the sets of plans and he did and
wished them support. He maybe should have got some letters from
him. They are the major neighbor.
Mr. Lennon said this project isn't seen from the city of Palm Desert
in general; they don't see this project from Bighorn or from Highway
74, and they tried to be sensitive to that. When they do look at their
buildings against the mountainside, they really blend in with the
color schemes they've done. He thought they've done a good job.
No one likes to set precedents; everyone is afraid of precedents,
but he thought their jobs as Planning Commissioners was to do the
right thing for the city and for the rest of the developers. He looked
forward to working more with them, and thanked them for their
deliberation. He thought it was probably the most impressive staff
presentation he's ever had for any of his projects and he's had a lot
bigger projects, but for the detail and various issues that were
covered, they could be proud of their staff. They did a really
wonderful job. He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Limont noted that Mr. Lennon said he has owned the land
for a long time and asked why it wasn't part of the original agreement.
Was there a reason?
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2009
Mr. Lennon thought originally someone came in and thiswas
approved for subdivision in the past. He was trying to remember
back, because he asked that question. At one time they were told
they couldn't have the infrastructure for it to handle this project and
then two years later after the whole thing had been blanked, he
found out that was a total mistake, that was wrong engineering
information he had. And that was absolutely the only reason.
Chairperson Tanner reiterated that Mr. Lennon owned the land, but now
were annexing into the Stone Eagle project.
Mr. Lennon said annexing into the Homeowners Association. They
created the CC&R's which came through the City in the beginning.
The CC&R's identify this land as approved for being brought to the
project. So they knew it could happen. The Environmental Impact
Report handles this kind of density and that's what they were trying
to do. When they do a project like this, they knew going in that it
was kind of a labor of love and they are never going to make a lot
of money on a project like this because there are so few residential
units and all the golf course communities need that. And as he
mentioned, he had said he would give up 2:1 on the density, but
they would really like to keep three or four units for if they could do
anything right around the clubhouse to add to the clubhouse. It's a
very common practice and great golf clubs have some residential
units as part of the clubhouse. They would meet all of their
requirements and density coverage, but they would like to have that
ability.
Chairperson Tanner asked if these lots would be held for sale for spec or if
they would be developed by Mr. Lennon.
Mr. Lennon said the intention now is that they would be for sale.
They have guidelines and have been through the Architectural
Committee, showed them the plans, and they've approved
everything and they spent a great deal of time with them.
Commissioner DeLuna reiterated that they would be sold as custom home
sites, he wouldn't be building individual homes that would be custom for
sale. He was just selling lots.
Mr. Lennon said they might, but were not obligated to do that. The
intent was to sell to existing members with their architectural
guidelines.
20
MINUTES`
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2009
Chairperson Tanner said they would come before them. Commissioner
DeLuna said as individual residences.
Mr. Lennon said yes.
Commissioner Campbell said that also on those individual residences,
they wouldn't exceed the 4,000 square feet on those lots. She asked if
that was correct.
Mr. Lennon said they would meet their existing requirements.
Mr. Stendell explained that the existing development agreement does not
preclude the 4,000 square foot maximum dwelling unit. That was
something he wanted to add, as he's done a little bit of analysis of what
they've seen in other developments like Bighorn and The Canyons side
with some of the ratios of house size to lot size and there could be an
instance where these lots could accommodate a house larger than 4,000
square feet and the development agreement they are attempting to go
underneath doesn't preclude that. So they could in essence see a house
out there that would be over 4,000 square feet.
Chairperson Tanner said it would come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Stendell said if approved, no, each home would come back to the
Architectural Review Commission, not Planning Commission. It gives the
jurisdiction of the original development agreement which does not hold it
to 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Lennon said when the original pads when they are cut, they
have to be re -naturalized to a percentage. The pad gets created,
then it gets re -naturalized with rock and boulders, when the house
is completed as well.
Commissioner Schmidt said he mentioned something very interesting to
her. This property was vaguely referenced in the original agreements, the
DA's, and the CC&R's and so forth that are regulating the rest of the
project, allowing them to exceed a 4,000 square foot home. And these
then now being incorporated, or annexed, into the present agreement,
would then be allowed to have that excessive square footage over the
ordinance by the nature of the development agreement with the City in
2002 sometime.
Mr. Lennon said that was correct.
Commissioner DeLuna noticed that Amendment No. 2 allows up to 19
homes to exceed the height limit to 25 feet. She presumed that none of
21
rk\
4 .
tr; 4-1.4 ts.
1
•;•
fr
* • VC...be,.
4.;
' •
:
• t
.
/Pk a
:�' 7f
•
''4
'414
1
I Arq 71111M+91, W : .01111{if: /
MrETEM/SiZit.--11=111b.‘1//lia
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Aylaian, Lauri
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:05 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: FW: Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Appeal
Rachelle,
FYI.
LA
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760.346.0611 phone
760776.6417 fax
From: Lennon, Ted[mailto:tlennon@Ioweenterprises.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Aylaian, Lauri; rstendel@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Subject: Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Appeal
Please postpone our appeal hearing currently scheduled for March 11th 2010. I will get back to you with a request for a
new hearing date.
Ted Lennon
Eagle 6.5. LLC
Ted R. Lennon
President
LDD Desert Development Inc.
74-001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Direct: (760) 674-2200
Cell: 760 285 8295
Fax: (760) 779-1469
Email: tlennon@loweenterprises.com
1